Organization Makes Progress Defeating IEDs

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Richard_North, Mar 7, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The article only really indicates that something is actually being done about the threat. It does not provide any awe inspiring advancements

    Not really anything new to the British, who lead the field on this subject.
  2. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    I would say, that there were somethings in the article that were important.

    The fact that more Iraqis are reporting IEDs is important. The best part, IMHO, was the amount of funds, made available to research people, to both come up with counter-measure tactics and equipment, as well as better protection for individuals and vehicles, etc.

    Of course, you are right dingerr, you Brits learned a lot in NI, as well as a few other places on IEDs. Many of the tools, that we Americans use were developed by the Brits for NI.

    The American military EOD units, and especially the EOD school, have kept abreast of the Brit's experiences over the years and have worked with them as well. I'm sure that a lot of the research, on this problem will be a joint effort. :thumright:

  3. Whoa! Loved up group hug!
  4. Rather proves how far sighted our American cousins were to have funded the period unpleasantness in Northern Ireland.
  5. That was a biting first time post!

    Welcome to the site and please keep biting!


  6. hahahahahahhahahahahahahhahaa :rofl:
  7. Call me a cynical old fool but here's what I think will happen.

    While the research element is indeed a "joint" effort and the British are leading the way I suspect that when the next Defence Spending review comes around the research budget will be sliced yet again to cover UOR type costs for current Ops (understandable).

    We will mature a product to lets say..TRL7 then all funding will be cut (because it is out of the research domain), then we hand over everything we know to the good ole US of A so that they can finish it off.

    So, the USA get £X millions of paid for research to make something they can then sell back to us, albeit in a slightly downgraded version that we need to have supported through a lengthy and expensive contract.

    Just a thought.
  8. Surely this is more down the advances in medical tech, and better BFCD?
  9. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    I remember most if not all the bleep side of EOD work was UK EYES ALPHA. Guess we're sharing with the yanks now...
  10. and better body armour.
  11. Yes, we Brits probably did learn lots that the US organisation set up to respond to IEDs can benefit from. A good proportion of that learning was held by the Ammunition Technical profession in the RAOC and then on the RLC. Much of that focused experience in terms of developing policies, equipment and training to respond to IED threats was held in "DLSA" and now "PATO". Apart from looking after the British Army's ammunition they also directed key aspects of the counter IED development and provided the professional lead to ATOs and ATs. I always thought it quite important and especially since we are again involved in conflicts where IEDs are the main cause of casualties. Also a 1* and latterly at least a full Colonel head of profession was a useful leadership focus for the technical aspects of a specialised skill set within the RLC. Many in the Army won't have experienced some aspects of what the ATOs did, but a good proprtion will have sat on a cordon in Basrah or Belfast whilst ATO did the sharp end stuff.

    But guess would appear that last week this organisation (now PATO) was effectively dismantled. Chopped up, dis-assembled and put to sleep. Hmmm. It must make sense to someone. But of course, I'm sure they were fully consulted. They would be wouldn't they? !
  13. TheIronDuke

    TheIronDuke LE Book Reviewer

    The word Quenetiq ring any bells?
  14. QinetiQ even. I couldn't possibly comment.